Friday, March 7. 2008

Recently there was a flurry of articles like this one trumpeting the fact that the white-tailed jack rabbit had disappeared from Yellowstone National Park. Now all of a sudden, with no where near the fanfare, we here the scientist involved is withdrawing his claim that these jack rabbits have actually disappeared from the Park.

"Yes, there were some left," Berger said. "I've got egg on the face, absolutely."

He does back his conclusion though by saying that there are so few left that predators are having to look for another food source.

I could care less one way or another about all of this. What I am more interested in seeing is if the press will tout the claim withdrawal as much as they did the claim in the first place. Claiming that the rabbits were all gone was big news and was all over all the major and minor news outlets. Will this retraction make the same waves or will the vast majority of the American public never hear it and still believe that there are no rabbits in the Park?

Yea, I agree, the majority of people will never hear this and have a false impression of the exact situation. Isn't that the way it goes. People hear one thing and think it the rest of their lives whether it's true or not.

Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness. And they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy... or they become legend. Jim Harrison

Monday, October 29. 2007

Montana cattlemen have a choice to make - to pursue a split-state status in the case of another brucellosis outbreak around the Yellow-stone National Park - or not.

“The governor is leaving it up to the cattle industry,” said Jan French, Board of Livestock member from Hobson, Mont., during a recent meeting discussing split-state status in Lewistown, Mont. “I'm pretty sure we will lose our brucellosis class-free status at one time or another, but this is an option.”

To start with, I am not so sure the Governor is giving us an option. The majority of the members of the Board of Livestock are beholden to the Governor for there position and the Montana Cattleman's Association (MCA), which is in lock step with the Democratic Party, has also come on board favoring the Governors split state idea. This is an interim step until the membership can vote on the idea but the leaders of the MCA are really pushing it. It will be interesting to see what the members of MCA think of the split state idea if they are allowed to vote on it. That's neither here nor their though.

Back to the split state idea though. Anybody that reads here knows I am not in favor of this split state idea. It is going to cost the state and cattle producers a lot of money for not much good. There is no proof that other states will respect the split state status, North Dakota says they won't, so all the money and work on it might not be for any good at all.

I would like to point something out about the split state status. If we were to have a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park right now, it would be a Brucellosis free zone and the rest of Montana would be suspect since the Morgan's place, which recently had a Brucellosis problem is not within the buffer zone. It would fall in the state of Montana so actually one more Brucellosis case would screw Montana where it would take two in the buffer zone. Kind of backwards isn't it?

I want to point out one thing. All of this split state status is because of the recent Brucellosis outbreak at the Morgan's place in Bridger. Some of the cows on the place were traced back to Emigrant which is very close to Yellowstone National Park. So the assumption is that the Brucellosis that was found in the Morgan's herd was from wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. This has never been proven. As far as I am aware they have never been able to pinpoint where the Brucellosis came from that affected the Morgan's herd. My sources indicate that some of the Corriente cattle in the Morgan's herd, which they bought, were not vaccinated for Brucellosis and the herd they came from was not vaccinated. Again the same thing here, there is no proof one way or the other that these cattle are how the Brucellosis got into the herd but it is an interesting bit of information.

So why are we having this split state discussion when we have absolutely no concept how the Morgan's herd was infected? Since there is no proof, lots of speculation but no proof, it came from Yellowstone National Park, why are we having this argument? If we knew for sure it came out of Yellowstone national Park, it would be one thing but we don't. I know, we are doing it just in case. But if there is a second case we are screwed anyway. I don't feel the split state status is the answer. Putting our time and effort into leaning up the Brucellosis reservoir in the wildlife is a better idea. Not sacrificing ranchers in the buffer zone for the supposed safety for the rest of us.

Logic is the technique by which we add conviction to truth. Jean de la Bruyere

Monday, October 15. 2007

I see that the Bison in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) are near record numbers at almost 4700 head. Here we have all these Bison running around the park and nowhere do we hear talk about too many bison and over grazing the park. Nowhere do we hear that the Park needs to bring in a predator to control the numbers of Bison. All we hear about is how the evil Montana ranchers are having the Bison shot coming out of the Park by a new Bison hunt in Montana.

Do people realize that the Bison wouldn't be leaving the Park if there was enough food to eat? There would be enough food to eat if the Federal Government would do something to control the numbers of Bison in the Park instead of leaving it to the states that the Bison wander into to control the numbers. The Feds are shirking their responsibility here. I know it is not Politically Correct to talk about responsibility but that is what this is about. Check out this.

Meanwhile, state and federal agencies are gearing up to deal with the possibility that bison may wander.

A plan approved in 2000 is intended to reduce the risk that bison will transmit brucellosis to cattle outside the park. The plan allows bison to be captured, and sometimes be sent to slaughter without being tested for the disease, if the population is greater than 3,000.

The plan for Bison control with YNP allows for slaughter without testing if the Bison numbers exceed 3000. This is an admission that 3000 Bison is about the right numbers for the Park. Does the Park take responsibility to control the numbers to maintain a healthy herd and healthy environment? No. They just expect the states surrounding the Park to shoulder the burden of the extra Bison.

I will guarantee you something, if you overgraze land year after year like the park service is, you damage your grasslands beyond recovery. Don't give me no bull about the Bison is a natural wild animal where the cow is domestic animal so the cow overgrazing is worse than the Bison over grazing. The grass could care less what animal over grazes it. Ever taken a close look at the forage cover left in a prairie dog town after a few years? There is not much grass left. Lots of weeds and undesirable grasses due to over grazing.

The Park needs to take responsibility for the herds under their control. The Bison numbers are too high for the pastures they have and it is hurting not only the Bison, but the land itself. I wish these Bison lovers would understand this concept. By pushing for the Bison not to be controlled they are actually causing more problems for the land and the herd than they are solving by protecting the Bison. Proper herd management of any herd of animals means making the tough choices about carrying capacity of your land and culling the herd of undesirable animals. The Park Service needs to do this with the Bison to have a healthy, stable herd. Responsibility, not a lot of fun but necessary.

Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect. Eleanor Roosevelt

Tuesday, October 2. 2007

As you may or may not know, Gov. Brian Schweitzer has proposed a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park as an answer to the Brucellosis problem in the Park. I give him credit for trying to do something about the situation but I don't really think a buffer zone is the answer.

North Dakota does not recognize split-state status due to monitoring problems of the cattle coming from the state in this class. “Who monitors that?” Keller asked. “We need assurance that there are no violations with the movement of breeding cattle across that state.”

This concern was also addressed by Dr. Sam Holland, South Dakota state veterinarian. “It's hard enough with the state geographical boundaries as they are now,” he said. “A split-state status multiplies this difficulty and puts the cattle producers of South Dakota at risk.”

If this buffer zone is not acceptable to other states, what good is it doing us? None. I really think the buffer zone idea is dead in the water and needs to be thrown out. Placing the burden of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park on the few producers who would fall in the area is wrong. The burden of Brucellosis needs to be on the Federal government who controls the livestock, bison, where the problem resides.

The Feds need to get the Brucellosis under control in the Bison and they need to reduce the numbers of Bison in the park to control them wandering out of the Park. I find it interesting that if I as a private individual over graze my grass, environmentalist will scream bloody murder and want me to stop over grazing. If the Bison do it in YNP the environmentalist scream bloody murder that the Bison don't have more public lands to graze on. They don't seem to care about the over grazing. Interesting, isn't it.

A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow real poverty. David Hume